Has there been any speculation about what may happen to CO's daily EWR-NRT and IAH-NRT flights if/when they enter into a close partnership with UA (or eventually a merger)? They would be a great addition to United's already impressive operation out of Narita. Presumably, CO will codeshare on UA's beyond-NRT flights and UA will codeshare on both EWR-NRT and IAH-NRT.

It would be interesting if CO extended its flights beyond NRT to expand a joint UA/CO network in Asia. Any ideas where they would be extended to? I think the best options might be EWR-NRT-MNL and IAH-NRT-CGK or perhaps IAH-NRT-HKG. Do they have route authorities (with 5th freedom rights) for many destinations in Asia beyond NRT? Perhaps they would have to shuffle destinations with UA.

MNL is already a CO station (with flights to GUM and ROR), which could mean lower start-up costs. There's also a signficant Filipino community in NY/NJ. CGK seems like it could really support a flight from a US carrier.

Quoting Iluv747400 (Thread starter):Has there been any speculation about what may happen to CO's daily EWR-NRT and IAH-NRT flights if/when they enter into a close partnership with UA (or eventually a merger)?

1/ the ATI being sought by CO/UA/LH/AC is for Transatlantic routes , I have not yet seen anything to suggest that a similar arrangement is being sought Transpacific

2/ UA is not the only *A member that could offer CO connections beyond NRT - NH has a considerably larger network of destinations beyond NRT than UA does , and OZCATG and SQ could also offer connecting opportunities beyone NRT for CO

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 3):No it wouldn't...get it in in the middle of the night, and get it out right before the 6 AM curfew...

I don't get it. Flight would arrive after 11 pm instead of the usual 2:30 pm and tie into ANA's bank of flights leaving HND after midnight? The return flight would depart just before 6 am instead of the usual 4:30 pm, which would tie it in with the 4 am ANA bank into HND?

Correct on the outbound, wrong on the inbound...would depart Newark around the same time as those Latin American flights, and get into HND in the middle of the night. Would then leave HND about quarter to 6 AM, and get into EWR about the same time as the LatAm flights do.

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 6):Correct on the outbound, wrong on the inbound...would depart Newark around the same time as those Latin American flights, and get into HND in the middle of the night. Would then leave HND about quarter to 6 AM, and get into EWR about the same time as the LatAm flights do.

But if the point of flying to HND is to connect to ANA flights, there need to be flights to connect to. An arrival at 11pm and a departure at 6am don't seem to be ideal times for connections, especially since Japan domestic flights aren't very long. I doubt there are many flights leaving HND after 12am (assuming one hour for connecting time), and I doubt there are many flights arriving before 5am (again, one hour for connections).

Coming back, good point. That said, if the arrival is at 3 AM (more likely), that doesn't do too badly for connections from HND. Besides, HND is also much closer to the city than NRT, and wouldn't do too badly.

Some reason, I figured there would be better late-night connectivity at Haneda than there is. Whoops...big mistake, on my part.

IF and when Haneda open to airlines from the USA times will probably not change much since most leave at lunch time and arrive into Tokyo around early evening/late afternoon. Some airlines may operate the " Black Hole" specials into HND, those typical departures for Asia at midnight or 1am with arrivals at 5-6am. Such midnight flights may work from JFK, ORD and eastern US cities but LAX, SFO and HNL are too close to Japan and the clock time would only be 3-4 hours since there are 7 hours time difference with California.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 9):IF and when Haneda open to airlines from the USA times will probably not change much since most leave at lunch time and arrive into Tokyo around early evening/late afternoon. Some airlines may operate the " Black Hole" specials into HND, those typical departures for Asia at midnight or 1am with arrivals at 5-6am. Such midnight flights may work from JFK, ORD and eastern US cities but LAX, SFO and HNL are too close to Japan and the clock time would only be 3-4 hours since there are 7 hours time difference with California.

Quoting Iluv747400 (Thread starter):
Has there been any speculation about what may happen to CO's daily EWR-NRT and IAH-NRT flights if/when they enter into a close partnership with UA (or eventually a merger)?

IINM, another problem with HND is that there are no immigration facilities at either of the main terminals. US flights would have to use the international terminal, which is going to be on the other side of the airport.

Nothing a shuttle bus or train can't fix, but it does hinder connections.

Quoting Iluv747400 (Thread starter):I think the best options might be EWR-NRT-MNL and IAH-NRT-CGK or perhaps IAH-NRT-HKG. Do they have route authorities (with 5th freedom rights) for many destinations in Asia beyond NRT?

CO does not have 5th freedon rights from NRT. Only UA and DL have them. The USA is only entitled to 2 incumbant 5th freedom carriers in the USA-Japan bi-lateral air services agreement.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 4):1/ the ATI being sought by CO/UA/LH/AC is for Transatlantic routes , I have not yet seen anything to suggest that a similar arrangement is being sought Transpacific

The proposed antitrust immunity, if granted, covers all operations worldwide -- except US domestic flying -- of the carriers involved in the application. Now, for countries where open skies is not yet reality, there may be localized constraints on the extent of cooperation -- but in the case of Japan, CO and UA (but not w/NH, for reasons that go beyond this thread) should be able to get immunity approval from the Japanese.

If the flights have good load factors into/out of NRT, then a tag-on only adds costs and reduces the time the aircraft is available for hub services. According to UA's current timetable, there would be many connections between UA and UA code shares to/from EWR & IAH with the current CO schedule. With that being said, CO could change the tag in the current UA scheme from a UA 777 to a CO 777 in a merged scenario.
Regarding HND, The local O&D market may shun flights that leave IAH & EWR about 2200 local time and fly all night to arrive about midnight. The return for locals leaving at 6am would mena early arrival at the airport.
If anything, the HND flight would probably be a new station instead of moving NRT flights.

Hi Avek00 would you mind providing a link for that , everything that I have managed to bring up in google searching with ' Continental Antitrust immunity ' just brings up mention of transAtlantic services , so I am curious to see the wording that includes worldwide operations - thanks

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 19):Hi Avek00 would you mind providing a link for that , everything that I have managed to bring up in google searching with ' Continental Antitrust immunity ' just brings up mention of transAtlantic services , so I am curious to see the wording that includes worldwide operations - thanks

The discussion within the DOT's Order to Show Cause makes repeated references to the worldwide nature of the immunity grant. Here is one excerpt:

"2. Scope of the Proposed Alliance

We have considered arguments to limit the scope of the proposed alliance. The primary basis for Delta’s objection is that the applicants do not have joint venture agreements in place on all routes that they might jointly serve. Without such agreements, Delta asserts that a worldwide grant of immunity is premature.

The Department does not require that airlines negotiate joint ventures covering all potential geographic markets to obtain immunity. It does, however, require applicants to submit their plans in enough detail to facilitate a complete competitive and public benefits analysis of a proposed alliance. In this case, we have enough information to analyze the alliance plans. Most of the applicants have been operating the immunized alliance for years. Adding Continental to the alliance does not require them to reconcile mutually exclusive benefit-sharing arrangements, as the SkyTeam applicants would have had to do in 2004, when they sought to merge two immunized alliances without a second-stage agreement to explain how benefits would be passed on to consumers.

In contrast, A++ expands on an existing template to provide for more detailed, integrated, and structured cooperation in many countries. Because the Star carriers already operate with worldwide immunity obtained in prior cases, restricting the scope of the Alliance Agreements at this juncture would primarily serve to disadvantage Continental and its customers. No party has shown a persuasive reason why Continental should be disadvantaged, or, alternatively, why we should take more expansive actions to rescind existing authority held by Star or other alliances.

Delta also objects to the proposed alliance on the basis that it could operate in limited-entry markets where there is no open-skies agreement. Delta’s characterization of the Department’s policy is incorrect. The predicate for our consideration of this case is open skies between the United States and the homeland of the foreign carrier-applicant, not for every third-country destination that might be served. We have consistently allowed cooperation in third-country markets, even in the absence of an open-skies relationship between the United States and the third country. Indeed, the Department has allowed cooperation in some restrictive markets as a means of introducing competitive forces and encouraging additional liberalization. Of course, we recognize Delta’s concern about the potential scarcity of entry opportunities in some markets. In the particular circumstances of this case, however, we will not jeopardize the network benefits of the proposed alliance by limiting the points that can be served, without stronger evidence of competitive harm.

Based on the discussion above, we tentatively find that the proposed alliance should not operate with restrictions on geographic scope."

US-HND with the proposed operating hours would not work very well with US carriers.
The any overnight flight departing the US would ahve to leave around 0100 in the summer and midnight during the winter schedules. These hardly connect with the US domestic operations. Secondly, any late night departures to US midwest or further east would arrive too late to connect with the US domestic system.
About the only destinations that could be of use would be US West Coast to HND with arrival around 2200 into HND, which would mean departure of around 1800 local out of the US.
The aircraft can then immediately turn during around and arrive in the late afternoon, with some connection opportunities on the western third of the US.